Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

AIBU to not understand getting marrying years after having kids and living together

380 replies

Lcats · 09/10/2020 17:47

What I really mean here is please help me understand. I just have never been exposed to this in real life. However I keep coming across such threads on mumsnet.

What I don't understand is - surely raising your child(ren) together is the ultimate commitment. So for people who marry say five years after having two children - does it nevertheless signify a new step in the relationship? Or is it merely a delayed celebration of the fact that you are already de facto married?

Among my friends those to whom being married mattered for whatever reason married before having kids, or after falling pregnant or having their first child. I have a few friends to whom being married never seemed to matter so they live together for years without. So I have no one to ask in everyday life.

OP posts:
rattlemehearties · 09/10/2020 22:27

why delay the marriage for years?

Because when you are young and counter culture you think "who needs marriage!". Then you realise the kids need protection if one of you tragically dies or even just buggers off (see: threads on Mumsnet where the unmarried housewife mother is left high and dry when the kids father fucks off). Then maybe you buy a house and realise inheritance tax boundaries are higher for married couples, etc etc. We married for boring practical reasons and we only didn't earlier because we were so against the institution... ultimately though you have to put idealism aside as no contract or will is recognised as strongly by the government as marriage.

Soozikinzii · 09/10/2020 22:29

It can affect inheritance and has all kinds of legal implications so I can fully understand it actually.

Snooper22 · 09/10/2020 22:33

I did it twice to each of my children's fathers, also got out of them unscathed being the better earner. I certainly won't be doing it again!!

Nicknamegoeshere · 09/10/2020 23:09

Well my fiancé would have married me yesterday if it was up to him - it's definitely me that is more "cautious" as it were. Marriage makes some things easier but in my experience can also complicate matters.
But then my fiancé and I have two very different experiences of marriage. We have both been married before, but his divorce (no children involved) was amicable. My divorce (two children) involved was hell on earth and still huge, huge issues seven years on.
Yes will will marry, especially now that we have a child together, but I will certainly be entering into it far more cautiously and with a more practical head on in my 40's than I did in my 20's. Soooooo many things I will do differently and will ensure as much as possible I retain financial independence as it's imperative not to rely on anyone else in this regard.

Thisisworsethananticpated · 09/10/2020 23:16

I actually find marriages at this stage far more romantic and committed

BashfulClam · 09/10/2020 23:21

Using ex uses re costs, time palaver are just rubbish and always make me feel whoever says it doesn’t really want to get married. We wanted to be married so we got married, we eloped, came back and told people. It was a done deal and if anyone was bothered about not being invited,well tough tits it was done. We spent very little and there was no stress as it was just us.

Cazziebo · 09/10/2020 23:22

@timeforanewstart

Married after kids as i wanted the same name as my children when they started school and something that mattered to me then as i was with their dad, others wouldn't care which is fine as well Also dh got made redundant so we could then afford a wedding ( albeit on the small side ) as we had a £1500 we had never had that amount as dh retrained when ds1 was born so money was very tight
Worst reason for a wedding I’ve ever heard!
  1. Give your kids your name. Sorted.
  1. Money is tight but you splash £1500 on a wedding?!
wishing3 · 09/10/2020 23:23

I’m engaged but in late 30s so wanted to prioritise having children with my partner. Didn’t want to be TTC while planning a wedding. Luckily am now pregnant. I’ll be 40 when this baby turns 1, and will probs LG try for a second. If we are lucky enough to have one I think I would then want to wait a bit longer to marry until I feel like my body is more my own again. So for me I guess the answer is timings and priorities g ha I g a family.

Ihaventgottimeforthis · 09/10/2020 23:27

We married after 11 years, two cats, two kids, house purchase.
I had come to terms with my own questions about a church wedding, we had moved to a different part of the country, we had saved some money, we wanted a big party.
Not a huge life change at all.

Nicknamegoeshere · 09/10/2020 23:29

@Thisisworsethananticpated I agree. My first marriage (at 24) if I'm totally honest wasn't for all of the right reasons. Peers were getting engaged/married, ex was comfortably off, I wanted children, was just out of a long-term relationship from which I'd been left heartbroken, ex "wooed" me. I very naively never really considered what would happen if it didn't work out. The wedding day was super-important and a bit over-extravagant really. But again, being totally honest, it wasn't romantic.
My second marriage (I will be 40) will be as different from the first as is probably possible!! Entirely non-traditional but exactly how my fiancé and I would like it. We're just having close friends and family and doing away completely with the typical "guest hierarchy" as we believe everyone celebrating with us is as important as each other. So no aisle but a guest "circle", one big table for the wedding breakfast etc.

Thisisworsethananticpated · 09/10/2020 23:31

Flowers congrats

Catmanduu · 09/10/2020 23:31

People live their lives the way they wish to live their Lives.
What is important to one may not be important to another.
To wonder why people find something like marriage important, compared to you, who can only see a rationale before or around the time of having children, is quite frankly very judgey.

Autumngoldleaf · 09/10/2020 23:43

Legal, next of kin, I've read so many stories of what a partner can't do if loved one dies or becomes vulnerable because they are not married!

Not next of kin!

Also for me, I wanted to be married to my dh because its incredibly romantic, we knew each other for several years, lived together had dc and married when she was 3...v v small wedding but it was romantic. I love being married to dh.

Also that slight background uncertainty and stress was removed re next of kin, fiancé's, death etc.

Kayakinggirl · 09/10/2020 23:46

My cousin got married after living with his partner for 30 years. They got married due to the legal side, mainly tax and inheritance reasons.

I live in a expat community. A lot of people have got married this year (who had kids) because they realised that with out that piece of paper family’s would be split apart if people had to return home. Many countries only let their own citizens (or spouse) back in.

Cazziebo · 09/10/2020 23:58

@Catmanduu

People live their lives the way they wish to live their Lives. What is important to one may not be important to another. To wonder why people find something like marriage important, compared to you, who can only see a rationale before or around the time of having children, is quite frankly very judgey.
But they don’t ‘live their lives the way they wish’ . Too often couples feel they need the big splashy, perfect, royalty for a day, sparkly event.

Women, (never ever heard a man say this) want the ‘same name’ as the partner for it all to be real.

For three generations, the women in my family have mostly retained their birth name. We’re all in stable, happy relationships. No confusion. Yet, our choices are often questioned by others. ‘Doesn’t your husband mind?’ ‘Aren’t your kids confused?’ ‘People will think you’re not married!’

So many expectations! People rarely make decisions in isolation.

TrixiePants · 10/10/2020 00:06

tax/fiscal/legal reasons eg inheritance

Nicknamegoeshere · 10/10/2020 00:09

Personally, the thought of changing my surname to my husband's upon marriage makes me feel more than slightly unwell!! Confused I shall be retaining my birth name.
As for the title of Mrs - well no thanks to that either!!

Graphista · 10/10/2020 01:03

I think you're doing what a lot of people do and completely missing the point of marriage.

Historically it has very little to do with Romance, and even now that's only part of it.

The legal and financial rights and responsibilities it confers on the couple are very important for when the marriage ends, yes when because they all end somehow, either divorce or when one of the couple dies.

Lots of women are woefully unaware of how vulnerable they are if not married to their partner, especially if (as is usually the case) having children means their career progression and therefore pay increases have been at the very least interrupted, they're even more vulnerable if they're working part time and more vulnerable still if they are Sahm without being independently wealthy.

Not just in the event of separation/divorce but also if the partner becomes incapacitated or dies it's much harder for a partner to access finances and support than it is for a spouse.

There's no legal definition of "next of kin" but where there's no clear legal connection and possibly dispute most authorities will default to deferring to those with a defined legal connection to the patient/deceased than a partner who cannot prove the connection or that they were who the patient/deceased wanted to be making certain decisions.

To be honest having witnessed the horrific experience of a relative who was an unmarried sahm who's partner died suddenly and unexpectedly and as a result lost their home, and had to go back to work full time while her dc and her were very much grieving still, I decided at a youngish age I would not be having dc without marriage first and I stuck to that and I'm so glad I did.

It made so many things so much easier following split from ex and meant I was better off financially than I would have been had I not been married. Not loads, less than £10k worth, but enough to get a car and rent a new home and essentials for it.

I've worked in the wedding industry in the past, but frankly it's absolutely insane now!

There's absolutely no NEED to have a WEDDING as such in order to get married and have the legal protections.

You can marry on your lunch break in jeans and have 2 witnesses off the street if you wish, certainly small weddings without a huge budget can still be beautiful and meaningful.

So postponing because you "can't afford a wedding" seems daft to me and quite honestly is often an excuse because one of the couple (usually the man) is reluctant to fully commit to the other.

I don't buy the expectations of family re a big wedding either, just another excuse. Yes noses might be out of joint for a while but most families/relatives will get over it. I've known several friends/family "elope" and have arranged similar weddings, there's usually very good reasons for the couple doing so and ultimately the people that really care for them get over it.

Graphista · 10/10/2020 01:04

@InTheVelvetDarkness you could do it on a school day? Each take 1 day annual leave

Children are not a commitment - it's scarily easy for a man to walk away from his kids in the Uk and it happens a lot!

Houses are not a major commitment as you simply sell your share.

Because if one of you is hit by a bus you're legally nothing to each other.

Is a very good way of putting it!

and we all know the laws covering co-habiting couples

Do you mean the lack of laws? There are actually a frightening number of people especially women who believe there's such a thing as common law marriage, that living with someone x no of years in their house entitles them to a share of that house upon separation, think they'll get something akin to spousal maintenance etc, see it all the time on the relationships board, women dumped for a younger model and suddenly discovering they have zero claim to any assets or support.

Neither means they are not in a committed relationship

Actually that's exactly what it means, living together isn't a commitment, you may feel emotionally committed but if one wants to leave the relationship and take all their assets with them and leave the other up shit creek including the children of that relationship they can.

but didnt have 5 or 10k to pay for a wedding

Totally unnecessary! It's entirely possible to have a lovely medium sized wedding for much less, if you go for a really basic formalities only option it's only a few £100

Graphista · 10/10/2020 01:05

But if the couple finds this fact important then why delay the marriage for years?

They might not have known and someone has pointed it out to them? Or they read something that makes it apparent to them? Health scares and job insecurity can sometimes motivate people to look into where they stand? Life experience teaches them? Especially if like me they see someone else had major issues as a result of not being married?

Lots of reasons

Having children is by far the biggest commitment out of the two

nonsense! Millions of men and some women walk away from their kids in the Uk and aren't even held to the most basic child maintenance laws because the agency supposed to enforce is shit!

I know our parents would help

assumptions like this are what lead to problems.

My relative had got along well with her "in laws" right until their son died, then they couldn't have been less interested in the kids and had absolutely no hesitation in turning them out of the family home.

You don't know what people really think or will do in any number of possible situations

Replication of the protections aren't guaranteed particularly as the person with the asset in question can unilaterally decide to and without even telling the other, change/withdraw them.

I've seen that happen a lot

All of you giving it "we'll do it at some point cos of inheritance tax" I'd have thought a global pandemic in which people of all ages are dying and nhs massively impacted would be damn good reason for doing so now!

Even in "normal" times there are accidents and previously apparently fit and healthy people can and do drop dead of undx issues. As a nurse I saw that happen more than people might like to think

Mortality rates in men aged 40+ have been INCREASING in the past decade

@winetime89 You do sound very naive I'm afraid, no assets do not "naturally find their way to the right person eventually" at all, even if you have things like life assurance the person holding the policy can change it without informing the other, ditto wills, other relatives can challenge validity or the terms which even if you're "in the right" can be lengthy and costly to prove...

Strictly speaking my relatives dc had a claim to the fathers assets, but she didn't have the time, money (due to lack of access to said assets!) or indeed the emotional strength to pursue a case at that time. She was too busy pouring her energies into supporting and providing for 2 devastated dc and grieving herself.

All money is in a joint account

That's a terrible idea for all kinds of reasons! Not even just to do with your relationship!

Eg

Banking crash takes your particular bank under - the govt guarantees protection up to £85k BUT if there were a major crash this could well take some time to access

IT/system crash/is hacked - this has already happened a few times in recent years, resulting in customers being unable to use their cards in shops or at atms

Personally I always have at least 2 accounts with different banks (and banking groups) plus an emergency credit card with a 3rd company.

There are potential issues coming up with brexit for instance. (Your bank MAY appear to be "british" but upon investigation is owned by an EU parent company outside the Uk)

One of you loses their mental faculties or they're called into question - banks can get very odd about this

One of you dies and another relative claims they have the right to inherit - again many banks will simply freeze accounts until resolved, read your accounts small print and its very likely they say they’ll do this it’s pretty common

and if we split house and savings would be shared?

based on what? Good will? Good Will is generally the FIRST thing to go in a split!

There are male dominated forums (sort of the "anti mn" of the internet) where men advise other men seeking advice on separation to:

Empty bank accounts (my ex did this, plus started running up an overdraft which I became partly liable for)

Hide assets and finances

Change wills etc

How to make their income appear less than it is to reduce their child maintenance liability

If I hadn't been married my ex would have got away with:

Emptying the joint accounts days after split and overdraft as I said

Taking the family car in the dead of night leaving me stranded in the arse end of nowhere with toddler dd

Taking valuables from the family home in my absence and without discussing with me including heirloom jewellery from MY side of the family

Not telling me about a work bonus he got just prior to split and had hidden in a secret account - fortunately with the bank we had the joint accounts with so they told my lawyer upon requesting info via legal Channels

It took a wee bit of time but he had to pay me back for all of that, if we'd not been married I'd have had no legal recourse whatsoever!

The other point to this being I am not speaking from a POV of being "smug" but from the experience of an ex who tried to screw me over and from having become acquainted/friends with other single parents (rarely it's the mum who leaves the family and they can behave just as badly as the men who become Nrps) who either we’re screwed over or their ex tried to

I've known of situations where:

The ex has emptied the house while the rp is at work and the kids at school to the point of taking the children's furniture and toys (this is far more common than you might think!)

Valuables have been taken and hidden

Vehicles taken and hidden including motor homes and boats!

Businesses have been deliberately and suddenly closed/ruined (one was a wedding dress one where the ex took off with the takings AND the dresses including those belonging to a lot of customers who'd already paid for them and had them altered! That one made the news!)

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE WHAT AN EX WILL DO!

I thought if we had life insurance Where one of us dies the house gets payed off that's all there was too it.* *

Nope! You need to closely check the particular clauses and terms.

I earn more than my partner. Always have done so don’t need any “protection”

Then surely THEY need the protection?

How would they and the kids manage if you were to become incapacitated or die? Don't you want to make sure your kids are protected?

To be perfectly honest incapacitation is a LOT more expensive than if you die. I believe (I may be going off old figures here) dying costs the remaining partner approx £20k, incapacitation costs your partner spouse £15-20k PER YEAR you remain alive.

Most people are woefully ill prepared for incapacity of themselves or their partner or spouse.

Partners mother recently died and she put in her will that her pension is to be split between him and sibling so I wonder why she can do that with her two pensions?

Because she has a clearly defined and recognised legal connection to her dc signified and proven by their birth certificates. An unmarried partner has no such recognition or proof.

I'd like to think that the legal protection offered by marriage would be extended to long term cohabiting couples I disagree with this, how would you define who was or wasn’t a legally recognised partner? How would you define when the partnership started? How would you protect people from false claims of partnerhood (eg those with lodgers who could legally prove same address)? How about people who have good reasons for NOT wanting to marry but want to live with someone eg if they have children from a previous relationship and they want to protect their children’s inheritance?

Nah it’s too vague and too open to interpretation, people shouldn’t be forced by default into a legal contract

In Australia, if you have been in a genuine domestic relationship for two years or more and/or have children you're entitled to the same as if you were married.

When is the 2 years counted from? Who decides that if one of the couple disputes and how is it proven?

No, one of the things about marriage (and I include civil partnerships too in all my reasoning) is that there is a witnessed date on which the relationship is confirmed and recognised.

B33swax · 10/10/2020 06:33

“”Lots of women are woefully unaware of how vulnerable they are if not married to their partner, especially if (as is usually the case) having children means their career progression and therefore pay increases have been at the very least interrupted, they're even more vulnerable if they're working part time and more vulnerable still if they are Sahm without being independently wealthy. “

Sorry but I think the above applies equally to married women too. Many MMers love
to chant this marriage solves everything mantra. It doesn’t, in some ways I think it makes many women more vulnerable as they put their heads in the sand and assume all will be well because they’re married. If you can’t support yourself with a decent wage, career and pension you are basically screwed regardless.

Most married couples don’t have hoards of assets enough to keep you comfortable for life if you receive half. Most married women would be lucky to receive enough equity from their share of the sale of the marital home to buy a smaller one and get a mortgage alone.

If you work, build up a career and pay into a pension that is all the security you need. For many women it doesn’t really matter if they’re married or not.

Lazysundayafternoons · 10/10/2020 07:30

Yes @graphista that line from my post has already been mentioned by PP with the same view as you and I have already responded.

Some people are happy to do a low cost wedding and if they are happy with that then that is great for them.

If I would rather wait a few years until I can afford a 5 or 10k wedding, (with the location or dress or number of guests I've always wanted) theres nothing wrong with that either.

Graphista · 10/10/2020 07:30

I would agree there's a need to caution against a total belief in marriage as a complete protection, it's not that.

But it does offer SOME protection for when things go wrong.

Yes ideally women would have children without it affecting their careers/jobs but unfortunately that just isn't the case for the vast majority of especially working class women as yet.

There is a certain irony in depending on a patriarchal contract to provide some protection from patriarchal practices/world in other ways.

Yes ideally we'd have employers that understood that employees are PEOPLE and not machines who need and deserve a healthy work/life balance and a living wage!

But until that becomes a reality we are where we are.

As I said my ex and I were hardly rolling in it asset wise but being married did result in my having some protections and the ability to recoup assets he attempted to remove from me, plus to be perfectly honest it made a lot of other financial and legal things just loads simpler.

My sister is also a single mum following splitting from her kids' fathers (eldest's dad was always quite flaky, the youngest 2's dad is a bit more reliable, not a huge amount though)

She had a much harder time claiming benefits, getting any child maintenance and even things like what school they could go to (religious area, won't be true in all of Uk) were limited.

Totally anachronistic, patronising bullshit absolutely but it still goes on.

She also foolishly thought she didn't need to be on the deeds or mortgage for their house as someone had convinced her (a friend not the partner) that common law marriage was a real thing in Scotland. This was despite my very switched on dad telling her otherwise and she ignored him. Then when they split and she discovered the house that she had put so much into (financially but couldn't prove it, but also time and energy) she had no claim on she was devastated.

I really do think such things should be part of pshe classes (or whatever they're called now)

The relationships board is littered with women totally blindsided and shocked that their long term co-habiting relationship has zero standing in law when they split.

B33swax · 10/10/2020 07:47

Many working class couples won’t have assets to split.

There is an interesting divorce thread running currently on AIBU.

The old next of kin chestnut that always crops up on these threads is bullshit.

cantarina · 10/10/2020 08:12

A good friend found that when her partner of 20 years died suddenly his estranged family were able to dictate the funeral arrangements (made everything super religious - he was atheist) and they took every penny they could including his full death in service benefit and savings. She kept the house because it was jointly owned.

He hadn't seen his mother in years, had only seen his dad maybe once a year. My friend had nursed him through illness for years, the family were nowhere to be seen and had been dismissive of his condition.

Everyone was surprised at their behaviour. You can't predict how people will behave.

If you are not married, make sure that you have both done what you can to protect the other person if the worst happens.

Make a will. Give your partner power of attorney to kick in if you are very ill.

Swipe left for the next trending thread